In his 1992 book "The Decline and Fall of the American
Programmer", Edward Yourdon exhibits multiple personalities:
There's Yourdon as Geraldo, Yourdon as Computer Science Pop
Professor, Yourdon does National Geographic and Yourdon the
bibliophile.

The first chapter is all afternoon TV talk-show style. This is not
to say that his proposition -- that "The American programmer is
about to share the fate of the dodo bird" -- is without substance,
it's more his supportive evidence that stinks.

Thereafter follows the meat of the book; a ranging discussion of
current software development technologies. He offers no definite
conclusions, nor has he a particular technology preference, since
he agrees with Fred Brooks that there is no "Silver Bullet" to
slay monster software projects of missed schedules, blown budgets
and flawed end-product. That is:

"There is no single development, in either [software] technology
or in management technique, that by itself promises even one
order-of-magnitude improvement in productivity, in reliability, in
simplicity." From "No Silver Bullet," IEEE Computer, 1987, by
Fred Brooks, quoted on p. 23.

The long appendix describing the Indian Software Industry is the
best thing in the book (interestingly providing ammunition to undo
arguments made in chapter one) and Yourdon's bibliography has
expansive commentary on what he considers the quintessential tomes
of programming practise.

Caper Jones, an author and consultant cited often by Yourdon, in
an April ComputerWorld interview said "The Decline and Fall of the
American Programmer" described the "worst case scenario".

THE BOOK

Yourdon begins:

"By the end of the decade, I foresee massive unemployment among
the ranks of American programmers, systems analysts, and software
engineers. Not because fifth generation computers will eliminate
the need for programming, or because users will begin writing
their own programs. No, the reason will be far simpler:
International competition will put American programmers out of
work, just as Japanese competition put American automobile workers
out of work in the 1970s" (p. 1).

Beneath this opening paragraph, there is a drawing of a big old
dodo bearing the caption "The American programmer, circa 1999".
Yourdon argues such will be the case because:

"American" programmers earn five to ten times more than their
foreign counterparts.

"American" programmers are relatively unproductive.

"Americans" do not write high-quality software.

Point one is undeniable and with each passing quarter, off run the
Sun's and EDS's to enjoy the advantage (programmers _are_ dodo's
if they are not conscious of this fact, once quipped an
associate). Foreign programmers and systems analysts speak
English, are highly-educated and can electronically transport
their software products anywhere in the world, says Yourdon [see
CPU 001 -- Ed].

But his justification for claims of low-quality and low-
productivity are specious. He writes: "More important than the
claim that India-based software is 30 percent cheaper than
American software is the likelihood that it has 10 times fewer
bugs and can be maintained 10 times more easily" (p. 16) though
previously he admits "nobody (to my knowledge) has yet attempted
any large-scale surveys of software quality on a national basis"
(p. 7 ). He leans heavily on self-observation of a particular
cast: "...I see so much evidence of sloppy, low-quality work all
around me in my day-to-day life -- in all fields, not just in
software development" and then he dodges providing other
supporting argument by suggesting the reader look up "horror
stories" in journals of the extreme (Peter Neumann's software bug
documentary, Jon Jacky's critique of probably the largest software
project to date -- SDI -- or having the reader contact CPSR).
Regarding productivity, "... I have not been impressed with the
energy level of the average programmer in the vast majority of DP
[Data Processing] shops I've visited in the United States. Most
of them have a difficult time remaining in an upright position all
day. I'm convinced that many organizations play muzak to hide the
sound of snoring" (p. 6) -- and this just after citing his
consulting comrade, Capers Jones, claiming the average American
programmer puts in 50-hour work weeks.

This early section is the low-point of the book. It's Camille
Paglia controversy. An academic woman attacks feminism voicing
the views of conservatives. She gets heavy media coverage.
Yourdon courts management. Those pot-bellied, birkenstock
programmers with the too-much hair (but fading from where it used
to sprout) not only look sloppy -- they really are ... and
expensive too! Irv Wendel, a consultant in Oakland, California
writes: "You blame U.S. programmers for rotten systems, crap code,
and not having a decent DP education. Bullshit. Blame the people
who control the situation -- management." (p. 11).

The rest of the chapter is taken up with a mishmash of views from
a Yourdon Compuserve forum calling for commentary on his dodo
thesis. Points of note are that competition seems to be coming
from projects overseen and funded by foreign governments, whether
it is the Indian government approaching a forum-contributing
consultant to ask his opinion on how best to set up an
establishment capable of training N x 100,000 young, educated
people in modern software engineering techniques or Yourdon's
citing nationally-funded programs: England's Alvey Directorate,
Europe's Esprit program, and Japan's SIGMA project "among many
others" (p. 10).

Interesting comments are made by Leon Levy of Bell Labs:

"Our present methods of developing software were developed two
decades ago when machines were expensive and programmer's
weren't... With the changing relative cost of machines vs.
programmers there will be increasing pressure to mechanize." (p.
11).

Levy thinks the above-mentioned Fred Brooks quote of there being
no Silver Bullet doesn't tell the pertinent story. He says there
will always be difficult software issues but "[d]evelopment of the
transaction type applications that are the bread-and-butter of the
application programmers of today will be sufficiently automated
that only very few applications programmers will be needed to
supply the demand." (p.11).

Yourdon concludes Chapter One with what he sees as the means of
keeping ahead of the software Golden Horde flooding from Asia, the
Indian sub-continent and Ireland. Buddha Yourdon will have the
software corporation achieve Nirvana -- or as he terms it, a state
of "world-class software organization". (In his chapter on
Software Processes he spends time on the Software Engineering
Institute's five steps toward the Ultimate). Before launching on
enterprise rescue (for "... the efforts of a productive few are
often overwhelmed in companies where 25 percent of large system
development projects are canceled before completion." (p. 17)), he
has a parting comment for the individual programmer and system
analyst, They must vote with their feet to follow those software
enterprises that are subscribing to his advice ("You can change
jobs freely" p. 18).

With no single Silver Bullet, chapter 2 begins by asserting that
what's necessary is multiple software techniques applied
simultaneously. Yourdon outlines the software technology veins
that he is to trace in coming sections, also explaining why he
devotes whole chapters to certain topics while leaving out others
that many might think of import. For instance, he quickly
dismisses the topic of computer languages. He believes that an
interest in the language used in the writing of programs will soon
be regarded an anarchronism: "Programming languages will still be
a matter of some academic interest, but the world-class software
organization will greet the announcement of yet another new and
sexy language... with a loud yawn." (p. 27). The language used
will be hidden from view by CASE tools. Object-oriented
Programming also gets short shrift. He is not interested in
object-oriented "programming" per-se; discussion of the type "Is
Smalltalk better than C++?" or "What's the best way to implement a
scroll bar in Microsoft Windows?". He believes this low-level of
discussion will have little effect on productivity and quality.
He advises focussing attention on object-oriented analysis,
object-oriented design and object-oriented databases. "If you
don't understand the user's requirements, it doesn't matter how
you code it." (p. 35).

Now Yourdon is in his stride. He's talking about what he knows
and it's informative reading (especially me being one of the DP
technique-ignorants referred to earlier in the book). He devotes
a chapter each to the importance of hiring and properly managing
the right people, software processes, software methodologies, CASE
tools, software metrics, quality, reusability, software re-
engineering and future trends. This makes up the bulk of the
book.

In the chapter on "Peopleware" (titling it so allows him to treat
people as though they were a technology in line with the headings
of his other chapters) he notes: "Attention to peopleware issues
can literally cause 10-fold productivity improvements, while
investments in CASE, methodologies, or other technologies rarely
cause more than a 30-40 percent improvement." (p. 28) He also
quotes DeMarco and Lister saying "Most managers are willing to
concede the idea that they've got more people worries than
technical worries. But they seldom manage that way." (p. 28).
Employees seemingly are where most gains can be made and at the
same time are the most unpredictable of the "technologies" listed.
He describes a test given by Sackman, Erickson, and Grant back in
1968 to 12 experienced programmers. They found wide variance with
the best person in the group finishing coding 28 times faster than
the worst person, and the best program was approximately 10 times
more efficient (in terms of memory and CPU cycles). There was no
correlation with years of programming experience or scores on
standard programming aptitude tests. By contrast, for programming
teams, Capers Jones reports that development and maintenance costs
of projects using experienced people were half that of projects
using inexperienced people. Yourdon spends time on how proper
management is key to unlocking "peopleware" productivity, with
this point reinforced by more solicited Compuserve views. He next
moves to a discussion of software processes dwelling on the
Software Engineering Institute's five levels of maturity for a
software development organization. These are:

The SEI holds that it takes months and usually years to go between
levels, and levels cannot be skipped (It would not be thought
unusual that it would take 10 years to go between levels 1 and 5).
A combination of organizational shake-up and software technologies
applied differentiates levels. Hardly any companies are operating
at levels 4 or 5 on an enterprise-wide basis according to SEI
survey, though some internal projects may be (companies measured
by SEI were such as Hughes Aircraft, GTE, IBM, Ford Aerospace,
McDonnell Douglas). Yourdon would have the "world-class software
organization" operating at a level 5. This whole topic is meant
for organizations of a 100+ or 1,000+ engineers. This discussion
came across as a trifle unreal in an industry where multiple
generations of software products, methods and companies might come
and go in a decade. Yourdon quotes Tom DeMarco as saying,
"according to the SEI model, Apple Computer should not exist".

The chapter on Software Methodologies spends time on the nature of
scientific revolutions as per Thomas Kuhn (he's read that book).
Figure 5.12 has a simple graphing of major methodological software
transitions from "structured techniques" to "information
engineering" to "object-oriented." But Yourdon writes that "the
typical software engineer needs 1 to 2 years to become familiar
and comfortable with a methodology. An obvious consequence is
that organizations are unlikely to change their methodology at the
drop of a hat; having chosen one, they will typically stick with
it for 5 to 10 years before choosing a new one. It also suggests
that the typical software engineer is unlikely to become
proficient in multiple methodologies; learning multiple
methodologies is more complex than learning multiple programming
languages." (p. 107).

This is also a problem when choosing CASE tools. Methodologies
implemented are behind the current state of the art -- even
decades behind, observes Yourdon. This will be the case until the
"CASE tools themselves become the driving force for methodology
creation and evolution." (p. 33). Other issues are that it's
expensive kitting-out each engineer with their own CASE
development environment -- but prices are plummeting. CASE has a
steep learning curve with a corresponding fall-off in productivity
after the first months of usage ( "At the end of 1990, IBM's
AD/Cycle, the ultimate CASE environment for carrying out a
software engineering methodology, already had 24 manuals! If the
trend continues, it will be necessary to start training our future
software engineers when they are in kindergarten if they are to
ever finish their training!" (p. 106)) But Yourdon banks heavily
on CASE as the way of the future radically changing the way
software is developed. He quotes Carma McClure:

This chapter also has a practical list of questions to ask of your
CASE vendor. "But in this field, as in so many other walks of
life, everyone lies; it's just a question of when they lie, where
they lie and how much they lie." (p. 136).

Software Metrics discusses methods of measuring productivity for
"You can't improve if you don't know the current situation". The
chapter on Software Reusability outlines what seems the most
straight-forward of the Yourdon-cited "technologies" often
realizing substantial pay-backs. He suggests setting up software
part's-shops with their own set of engineers working on nothing
but producing code for reuse. Having been around a while, Yourdon
notes this is a fashion that alternatively thrives and wanes. He
recommends offering incentives -- financial etc. -- to encourage
engineers in thinking in terms of reuse. He suggests old
applications as a resource worth mining for tested, reusable code
and devotes a chapter to maintenance of programs written years ago
in languages forgotten by people long gone. Mainly its a
sympathetic lament promising no magic fix. This is relevant
Yourdon writes, because many organizations spend more than half of
their MIS resources keeping old software alive.

The last chapter is on future trends, and he concludes that no one
can predict what will happen in the future.

CONCLUSION

I read this book to see what's in it for the everyday Joe Blow
programmer ("Software Engineer", "System's Analyst" etc.). I
learned from the chapters on software technologies (e.g., CASE
tools are going to change everything but they are not here just
yet). But this is a book busy saving the "American" software
enterprise (This smacks of the "Buy American" campaign in the face
of the latest Honda Accord made of 80 percent American parts
assembled with American labor. Profits accrue to multinationals
based in "American" cities rather than those overseas). Yourdon
would have companies listen to Robert Reich and invest in training
and tools for Joe Blow back home to make an increased productivity
out-weigh the local higher costs [CPU would like to hear about
companies spending on their employees -- Ed]. Simultaneously, he
would have them set-up liaisons with such as the described Indian
software shops in Appendix A to take advantage of cheaper labor
(Yourdon provides a long listing of Indian contacts).

But in this Yourdon's book is out of touch. Companies are opting
NOT to invest in their "peopleware". Layoffs, out-sourcing and
the tendency toward contracting programming labor are what we are
getting instead. CASE tools are a large capital investment and
you can hire multiple cheap Indian, Irish, FOC's (Fresh Out of
College) or whatever programmers for the same price -- and not be
stuck with an obsolete shelf-full of dated manuals and software
six months later (The relative high-cost of CASE is why little is
done with this technology in India, Yourdon writes). Have labor
make the capital investment themselves either by self-financing
education and then getting hired or have some foreign government
subsidize a programmer acquiring current skills. That Yourdon
discusses little these tendencies is a major omission.

All general regulations concerning work (working duration per week
[37,5 - 40 hours][*2], working environment concerning health &
safety, length of holidays [5 weeks minimum], social insurance
[fixed by law], working restrictions for pregnant women, ...) are
defined by law. In addition to that there are two further possible
agreements:

a) Collective agreements between unions and representatives
of employers. Essential contents are the definition of lowest
levels of income, improvements of the working environment with
respect to law. These agreements exist separately for every trade.
Almost every trade has its collective agreement.

b) Agreements between the works council of a single company
and representatives of this company. We will call that "company
agreements". Areas which may be covered by "company agreements"
are defined by laws.

Both collective agreements and "company agreements" are not
restricted to union members; i.e. both are valid for all employees
of one trade with respect to one company and have a status similar
to law. The collective agreement may only contain improvements for
the employees with regard to laws and such; the "company
agreement" may only contain improvements to the collective
agreement. Any written drawback is invalid -- that's the law. So
we have a hierarchy of regulations: laws, collective agreements
and "company agreements". In addition to that individuals may have
a special contract with extra benefits.

2) WORKS COUNCIL

Every company with five or more employees is obliged by law to
have a works council. The works council has a certain number of
members depending on the number of employees; council members do
their committee work as part of the paid working time. If the
company is big enough, one or more council members may work
exclusively for the interests of the employees. All members of the
work council are permanent (they cannot be fired). And, council
members need no be unions members if they don't like. [*3]

a) Elections. The works council is voted upon in a secret
election every four years. Of course, several parties may apply
for the election.

b) Rights and Duties of the Works Council.

Representation of employees in all affairs.

Participation in "company agreements". There are some

areas where company representatives may be forced on the basis of
law to agree and sign such agreements (e.g. such as we had in our
company on the definition of flexible working hours), and some
areas where works council and company representatives agree on a
"good will" (e.g. such as we had on the refund of costs for
glasses and contact lenses).

The council is responsible to check whether laws and
collective treatments are respected.

The company is not allowed to change the "status quo"
in some aspects, unless the work council agrees. E.g. the company
intends to install a automatic time supervision of telephone
control. In such cases the work council shall agree only if the
collected data is not be used against employees in any case.

The members have the right to do council work as part of
their job and have three extra paid weeks in four years for
further education.

The company has to provide room(s), law books,
telephone, etc. for the committee.

The company has to inform the council about the
commercial situation of the company (balance sheet) and about
other important issues (new strategic plannings, new and leaving
employees, etc. etc.) These rights sound very comfortable at the
first glance but in many companies it is hard to get them; with a
works council you have the best means to enforce your rights. Only
if your company has a works council is it possible to have
"company agreements" and to oppose effectively negative
developments in the company (e.g. notice of termination of
employment)

(Engagierte Computer ExpertInnen, Austria)

FOOTNOTES
[*1] Regulations in other West European countries are similar as
far as we know.
[*2] In [brackets] some numbers for Austria.
[*3] In fact, not all companies in Austria, even with some
hundred employees have a work council. Often no one dares to do
the first step because s/he is afraid cause of the company
representatives. The unions only act on behalf of the law to
enforce a work council, if someone has blamed the company for
having no council.

The recent Department of Labor "Glass Ceiling Report" concluded
women are not successfully pushing beyond mid-management
boundaries - only 3% difference in the last 3 years. It is
because we are less capable, less educated, less effective? Of
course not. The Clarence Thomas hearings left many people with
the mistaken impression that there are only two kinds of women -
men lovers and men haters. Is there anyone out there representing
your voice? Take a look at WIT.

The International Network of Women in Technology (WIT) represents
a centered alternative. We are a grass roots organization
representing women working in technology companies who prefer to
define ourselves, individually through our consciousness and
actions. WIT is dedicated to improving the status of women in
technology and helping women advance to the highest levels of
responsibility possible.

We don't want to be promoted (or held back) because we are women,
but want to be accepted on our own merit. Rather than adopting a
"victim" mentality. We chose to empower ourselves - rather than
asking for depending on, or expecting someone to make our lives
better, we choose to take responsibility and do it ourselves.

{We take the obstacles we, ourselves place in our own paths as
seriously as the obstacles imposed by others. We find both
intolerable.}

We are committed to growth and self-improvement - women who care
about each other and want to make the world a better place. We
consider ourselves principled, effective and capable of assuming
great leadership roles. We believe we can contribute to solving
world problems and making things better in very small and very big
ways. Many of us aren't "joiners," but see the value of
significantly expanding our network.

{Who we know and how fast we can get critical information
significantly contributes to our empowerment!} All of us have our
own networks. WIT will help us multiply those networks
efficiently to leverage off and access valuable information.
Involving women working in a variety of technologies and
backgrounds will directly contribute to our individual and
collective power base.

All WIT members will be part of an electronic mail network (under
the WIT alias) which will empower each of us by allowing us to
broadcast and receive information to and from members all over the
world in a time critical manner. This network will be invaluable
and profile successful women. All WIT members will have access to
the WIT job hotline dedicated to help women get ahead. Our
Membership Directory will be an outstanding source of contacts.

If you wish to be included in our network, Directory and have
access to our job hotline, we welcome your support, friendship,
and membership. Please mail the attached Membership application
with your check to:

Finding good data on the fast-changing computer industry is no
easy task. Government industry classifications are hopelessly
dated, and government data is often a few years old by the time
the general public gets a hold of it. Other sources -- the various
industry organizations and publications that collect data -- are
scattered, often hard and/or expensive to obtain. For the high-
tech job seeker, finding potential employers or getting useful
salary data is an equally daunting task. So _The 6th Annual
Computer Industry Almanac_ is quite a treasure.

The almanac is over 800 pages of recent data about the computer
industry. Compiling research from over 90 sources, the almanac
include chapters on computer companies, products and technologies,
education, employment and salaries, industry forecasts, and more.
There is a wealth of data in this book that will be useful for the
computer industry worker.

For the job-seeker, the almanac includes an directory of 2,909
computer companies, including address, telephone and fax numbers,
number of employees, annual revenue, product focus, type of
ownership, and the company president's name. (This data is also
available on disk for $200). Unfortunately, these companies are
not indexed by product focus, or by location. This would be a very
useful addition to future editions. However, other listings of the
leaders in respective industries can give the job-seeker a
headstart in at least identifying the leaders in a respective
field. The almanac includes company rankings from various computer
and other business publications, including _Datamation_,
_Electronic Business_, _Forbes_, _Fortune_, _Soft*Letter_, and
more.

For help in negotiating salaries, or determining the wage scale in
your area, the almanac includes the results of several different
industry salary surveys, including ones from _Computerworld_,
_Datamation_, Source Edp, Positive Support Review and Source
Engineering. In case you were interested, the median salary for a
software designer/developer with 4-6 years experience in the San
Francisco/San Jose area is $54,100 (that's from the Source
Engineering survey). In Portland, the median salary for the same
is $43,700. The national median is $48,000. Unfortunately (and
this isn't the fault of the almanac, but the original surveys
themselves), the surveys don't have fine enough job descriptions.
For example, how do salaries compare for work on different
platforms (e.g., Mac vs. Windows vs. UNIX), or for specialty areas
or languages?

For career planning, the almanac includes an employment trends
section, with perspectives on what skills are in high demand now,
or likely to be down the road.

The almanac also includes the top stock options, the top 150
industry executives in terms of salaries and compensation, the
Fortune billionaires that are connected with the computer and
telecommunications industry, etc. etc. Curious how much your
company is making off of you? There's a listing of profits per
employee (in the "Computers and Communications: Major Systems"
category, AST is first, at $28,300, Apple is listed second at
$22,500). At Microsoft, profits per employee is $83,900. The
largest profits-per-employee ratio of any of the computer
companies is cisco Systems (networking-related products), at
$154,700.

There are a few holes in their collection; or rather, things-that-
would-be-useful-additions. Things I'd like to see: a survey of how
many contract and temporary employees companies, and pay
differentials; an international comparison of salaries; how much
offshore development work is done by companies; inclusion of
information on the non-engineering/non-management positions (e.g.,
clerical, manufacturing and custodial positions); information on
the status of women in the industry, an analysis of various
nationalities and ethnic groups in the industry (the Pacific
Studies Center, Mountain View, has done some interesting research
in this area); and the inclusion of electronic publications in the
publications listing.

Still, _The Computer Industry Almanac_ is the best single source
for computer industry information. It comprises the most up-to-
date collection of information on the industry that exists. It's
certainly a book to encourage your public library or company
library to get, if you can't afford your own copy. We'll
especially find it useful here at CPU in future months.

CPU recommends _AMATEUR COMPUTERIST_. Its not your usual net-
fare, carrying considered articles of substance (There's history
even!). Here follows a quote from their self-description: "The
newsletter is dedicated to support for grassroots efforts and
movements like the 'computers for the people movement' that gave
birth to the personal computer in the 1970s and 1980s. Hard
efforts of many people over hundreds of years led to the
production of a working computer in the 1940s and then a personal
computer that people could afford in the 1970s. This history has
been serialized in several issues of the newsletter .... Most
recently the newsletter has begun an online edition that is
available free. We are beginning to document the progressive
impact of democratic developments like Usenet News and the
Internet..."

Their most recent issue (Winter/Spring '93) has a good framing of
the Internet's open and free development, something the hovering
commercializing sharks waiting on the sidelines are about to
squash and meter. There are articles on the "Social Forces behind
Usenet", an interview with Henry Spencer, one of the early
participants, authors and pioneers of Usenet News discussing News
origins and the writing of the C news program, an obituary of John
G. Kemeny, co-inventor of the computer language BASIC and of the
Dartmouth Time Sharing System (DTSS) and advocate of universal
education in programming, and another on the tradition of May 1,
1848 -- how the first 10 hour bill law in Britain caused capital
consternation.

_AC_ was described by Andrew Ross and Constance Penley in their
book _Technoculture_ (Univ. of Minnesota Press, 1991, p. 125):

"When worker education classes in computer programming were
discontinued by management at the Ford Rouge Plant in Dearborn,
Michigan [February 1987], United Auto Workers members began to
publish a newsletter called the Amateur Computerist to fill the
gap. Among the columnists and correspondents in the magazine have
been veterans of the Flint sit-down strikes who see a clear
historical continuity between the problem of labor organization in
the thirties and the problem of automation and de-skilling today.
Workers' computer literacy is seen as essential not only to the
demystification of the computer and the re-skilling of workers,
but also to labor's capacity to intervene in decisions about new
technologies that might result in shorter hours and thus in `work
efficiency' rather than worker efficiency."

Try the _AC_ news-group
'alt.amateur-comp'
for a sample or to obtain a copy, send E-mail to:

EMPLOYMENT TRENDS IN ELECTRONICS INDUSTRY: "Domestic employment in
the U.S. electronics industry fell for the fourth consecutive year
in 1992. December, 1992 electronics employment was 2,291M or
99,000 (4.1%) less than the 2.39M reported for December, 1991.

"The only industry segment that experienced growth in 1992 was
Prepackaged Software, with a modest 2,270 new jobs. On the other
hand, Defense/Commercial Guidance Systems lost 30,000 jobs last
year. With one exception, U.S. electronics employment showed no
month-to-month growth for 30 consecutive months. Since August,
1989, our industry has lost 309,000 jobs. And, when the industry's
healthy software segment is removed from the total, domestic
electronics employment dropped by more than 380,000 in the same
period." -- American Electronics Association, as quoted in the
_1993 Computer Industry Almanac_

[Also, pay in most areas dipped slightly over the previous area,
according to a _Computerworld_ survey. The AEA reported recently
that employment in the industry rose by 12,000 in June. "'Although
this represents some modest improvement in our industry's
employment level, we still have concerns about the long-term
prospects,' said AEA Chairman Arnold N. Silverman." (_SF
Examiner_, 8/26/93)]

LAYOFF MONITOR:
As expected, IBM announced large layoffs at the
end of July, this time it was 35,000 workers, and announced
closings of some unspecified factories. Reports the _New York
Times_ (7/28/93): "[IBM chairman louis V.] Gerstner acknowledged
the 'unbelievable burden' on the IBM work force in recent years
and how employee morale had suffered as the payroll was reduced by
more than 100,000 people... Yesterday's announcement of further
cuts will do little to revive morale."
FUJITSU, the leading Japanese mainframe manufacturer, is
cutting 6,000 workers (11%) over the next two years.
(_Wall Street Journal_ 7/15/93)...
TANDEM
Tandem will cut 15% of its employees over the next year,
that's 1,600 to 1,800 people; they also instituted a
permanent 5% cut in pay for all employees (WSJ 7/29/93)...
DIGITAL EQUIPMENT
Digital Equipment is closing a 600-
worker disk-drive factory in Germany (NYT 8/20/93)...
Disk drive maker QUANTUM announced in August that it was
laying off 7% of its
workforce or 147 people (_SF Examiner_ 8/3/93)...
EVEREX SYSTEMS, in Chapter 11, is cutting 125 manufacturing
workers (_San Jose Mercury News_ 8/27/93).
MEAD DATA CENTRAL (provider of Nexis and
Lexis databases) is "streamlining" -- 400 workers to be dumped
(NYT, 8/20/93)...
In the SPINNAKER/SOFTKEY/WORDSTAR merger, 30
jobs will be lost (_SF Examiner_ 8/18/93). In telecommunications,
AT&T announced it would close 40 operator centers (WSJ, 8/31/93),
phasing out 4,000 operator jobs; SPRINT is cutting 1,000 jobs in
its long distance unit (_SF Examiner_ 8/27/93); AMERITECH
announced it would cut 1,200 to 1,500 management positions (NYT
8/21/93).

FIRED FOR INTERNET POSTINGS?: Gregory Steshenko, a systems support
engineer at MICROSOFT, claims that he was fired in June for
messages he posted on the Internet. He asserts that outspoken
postings about the Ukraine prompted complaints directed at his
employer. Microsoft initially asked him to stop posting from work,
which he did, but Microsoft continued to receive complaints, so
the company fired him on June 29, citing "lack of discretion,
judgement and professionalism." Microsoft's employee handbook
evidently proscribes offensive statements on electronic bulletin
boards. Steshenko considers this a free speech matter, and undue
control over his personal, "extracurricular" activities. He is
considering suing Microsoft. (This story adapted from the _SJ
Mercury News_, 7/22/93).

STRIKE AGAINST DEC IN GERMANY: For the first time in history, the
most powerful German Union "IG Metall" used strike measures
(lasting two weeks) against a computer company. The German DEC
company had not signed a collective agreement which has been in
place for the DEC subsidiary Digital-Kienzle (among others).

Digital, currently heavily restructuring their German
subsidiaries, signed the contract; as a result, the weekly working
time is now 36 hours per week.

[Please note, that what I call a "collective agreement" is an
agreement between representatives of a Union (e.g. Steel Union)
and representatives of ALL companies whose employees are
represented by that Union. So all steel workers in Germany,
Austria have the SAME collective agreement. They may also have
certain company agreements (only improvements) on a per company
basis. -from Engagierte Computer ExpertInnen, Austria]

CRACKDOWN ON IMPORTED CONTRACT PROGRAMMING? Federal and state
authorities are moving against companies that hire contract
programmers from other countries and pay them less than the
prevailing wage, according to the _San Jose Mercury News_
(9/6/93). Placement firms take advantage of provisions in
immigration laws to bring programmers to the U.S. for extended
work stints, of up to six years. Most companies deny paying less
than the prevailing wage. "But one [agency], asking not to be
identified, said that wages, especially for independent contract
programmers, have gotten too high and that the international
temporaries offer some relief," reports the _SJMN_.

The U.S. Department of Labor recently fined a Michigan placement
firm $180,000 for failing to meet several requirements for hiring
offshore workers, including failure to pay prevailing wages to 41
software engineers. The company is appealing the decision, and
disputes the Department's prevailing wage figures. The Department
of Labor asserts that temporary computer programmers in the San
Jose area should be paid anywhere from $35,734 for a junior
programmer/analyst with no experience, to $85,000 for a
programmer with 10 years experience. The Michigan firm, COMPLETE
BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, believes those figures are too high (though at
least some are in line with the _Computer Industry Almanac_'s
surveys).

In addition, the California Employment Development Department
(EDD) has fined six international contract programming agencies a
total of about $1 million in back taxes on their contractor's
wages. The state says it is trying to bring the industry back into
"compliance."

According to HEWLETT-PACKARD figures, H-P pays about $60,000 to an
agency for a programmer on a temporary visa. The temp engineer's
pay varies. California's EDD says the prevailing wage is from
$32,700 to $44,520 a year, depending on job title (note the
discrepancy between their figures and the Department of Labor's
figures). One firm says it pays temp engineers about $3,000 a
month when taxes are included, but according to several recent
lawsuits by some Indian programmers, they have complained that
they have only been getting $1,400 to $1,800 a month.

Concerning recent announcements of a layoff of 2,500 employees by
Apple, Jay Leno recently quipped they were achieving their
longtime dream of becoming the same size as IBM. Hi - oooooh!

=-=-=-=-

Q: What is the difference between Jurassic Park and IBM?
A: One is a high-tech theme park for dinosaurs and the other is a
movie by Steven Spielberg. Ba-bing!
Kick Them Even If They're Not Down Department
Q: What is the difference between Jurassic Park and Microsoft?
A: One is a high-tech theme park dominated by expensive, nasty,
hungry, predatory monsters that will destroy anything they can
get their teeth into... and the other is a movie by Stephen
Spielberg.

[from "Bits and Bytes Online". Bits and Bytes Online is a weekly
electronic newsletter. Email Subscriptions are available at no
cost from
slakmaster@aol.com or
jmachado@pacs.pha.pa.us.
Put "SUBSCRIBE" in the subject header.]

CPSR is a nationwide public-interest organization
that examines the impact of technology on society.